Another trust branded as 'at war with club'

Some interesting comments from the Parliamentary Governace deliberations,where David Gill has lambasted the Trust at our friends from my side of the Pennines.In the days of multi-millionaire owners who seem accountable to no-one,it certainly provides an insight into how the bigger and better supported Trusts seem to be struggling in trying to communicate with the club.

"But he was adamant that the club did respect the opinions of their fans and held forums with them three to four times a year to gauge - and often act upon - their concerns". Where is the dialogue between Leeds United and Fans Groups?Also the failure to speak with any fan or fansgroup who disagree with what a club is doing is wrong end of

LUSCBRADFORD wrote:"But he was adamant that the club did respect the opinions of their fans and held forums with them three to four times a year to gauge - and often act upon - their concerns". Where is the dialogue between Leeds United and Fans Groups?Also the failure to speak with any fan or fansgroup who disagree with what a club is doing is wrong end of

Theres an avenue with the RMCs which brought about the loyalty scheme and the club have had dialogue with the Trust,so although thats not exactly moved mountains its something positive and a foundation.Not sure who's to blame in the stand-off between the Chairman and the SC,but if I'd have been running the latter the present situation wouldnt have existed and there would still be dialogue.People have every right to criticise but invariably criticism is never constructive,and in Ken Bates' case its taken personally which makes things harder.

No single fan or group has any right to speak to any club,but owners will listen to rational,relevant and sane suggestions which improve communications between the two-inc Leeds United at present.For fans to ask who owns the club as some sort of divine right isnt on in my book,particulary when such information could be helpful to other prospective owners and to hostile third parties.(specifically people like Melvyn Levi)

If every club however was instructed to do the same then I'd happily fall into line and agree with that,as that would be fair and proportionate around the clubs.

I don't know who has misinformed you about what took place between Ken Bates and the supporters club but the truth is that Ken Bates set out to attack the supporters club from the outset. This has been VERIFIED as you are well aware. To blame things on any event which may have taken place subsequently is to confuse cause and effect and to get them the wrong way around.

In truth there is nothing that you or anyone else could do to create dialogue with the club in that situation.Just wanting it to happen isn't enough. There has to be a wilingness on both sidse and there is only willingness on one side - and it isn't the club. I'm not sure about Mr Harvey but certainly Ken Bates remains antagonistic towards the SC AFAIK.

I don't really understand why knowing the owners of the club would benefit Melvyn Levi. Perhaps you could explain this to me sometime.Have you ever stoppoed to consider what might have caused antagonism from Melvyn Levi ? (if antagonism is the right word)

I'm not aware of anything being set in stone regarding the SC and KB,but if someone can produce indisputable evidence that either one or the other was to blame then lets have it.Can we leave spurious links and hearsay out of this please if thats possible?

From what I've read from the press and elsewhere concerning both The Chairman and SC officials,it seems to me theres issues with both sides and intransigence to boot so for me one has to make the first positive (and realistic) move.It would have been nice to have discussed this initially with both the local SC branch and the Exec,but they both refused at the local pub where the branch meet.

Melvyn Levi is someone who wants to be involved at director level again with the club,particulary as it pays good 'expenses' and great perks for very little nett gain.I'm of the opinion given his own business connections* he'd be willing to do whats best for him rather than whats best for the club,given his track record and part played in the snaffling of a portion of the ST money.

theseagullbus wrote:I'm not aware of anything being set in stone regarding the SC and KB,but if someone can produce indisputable evidence that either one or the other was to blame then lets have it.Can we leave spurious links and hearsay out of this please if thats possible?

From what I've read from the press and elsewhere concerning both The Chairman and SC officials,it seems to me theres issues with both sides and intransigence to boot so for me one has to make the first positive (and realistic) move.It would have been nice to have discussed this initially with both the local SC branch and the Exec,but they both refused at the local pub where the branch meet.

Melvyn Levi is someone who wants to be involved at director level again with the club,particulary as it pays good 'expenses' and great perks for very little nett gain.I'm of the opinion given his own business connections* he'd be willing to do whats best for him rather than whats best for the club,given his track record and part played in the snaffling of a portion of the ST money.

*None offshore Trusts afaik.

Spurious links and heresay? Hardly. It was confirmed by the best possible source and you have been told this, not only by me, but also by a very good and long standing friend of the source (who you have claimed to have a lot of respect for in previous postings).I think the problem here is that you have a very clear anti SC agenda (for historical reasons) and this truth does not suit your own preferences.I KNOW this to be true and not heresay because I am the person who asked for the confirmation IN PERSON and face to face, just prior to a regional FSF meeting. There are quite a few witnesses to the answers given.It is all very well to telephone the FSF but you really need to listen to what they are telling you or you won't get much benefit.

I assume that you are referring to your local SC branch and exec and I have no idea why they won't talk to you. I'd have to make a guess at that. Might it have anything to do with your more outlandish and unfounded attacks upon the SC ?

I have no idea what Press items you refer to but I am attending the SC exec meeting tonight so I'll ask them if what you are claiming is correct. There is nothing like getting confirmation from the right places instead of simply making things up to suit for the sake of a posting on a forum.

I am no fan of Mr Levi - or of his late father - but I seriously doubt that you have evidence to back up what you say about him.What you have written does not explain your previous claim concerning his knowing/not knowing the owners of the club.

Now hang on a minute-I've made a simple request to have the root cause of the KB/SC issue proven and havent accused either camp of being responsible for the problems,so youre bang out of order accusing me of having an agenda.It might not be necessarily for my benefit but its something that needs verifying,although that wouldnt necessarily bring an solution to the problem as it stands.If the SC has the substantial numbers then it needs to be acknowledged as such,but not to the detriment of everyone else and that would include ex-employees of Leeds United.

As I've said previously my issues with the local SC branch started nearly 18 years ago,yet I made a genuine and polite request to work together when the RMC was set up in 2007.That was refused without being considered by their committee and since I've written on many occasions to the Executive,where the last time the details were leaked through a third party on waccoe.If I really wanted to be arsey I could be but I'm still looking for a resolution rather than continue a war,where we're still unable to run regular coaches to ER due the situation.I'm prepared to talk and try and do whats best for all Leeds Utd fans even if this means me making my own way there-the doors still open on my part.

The references to the press were the interviews given by Ray Fell obo the SC during the administration,where his opinions seemed to divide opinion within the fanbase.I'd prefer someone talking on behalf of the fans who are represented by the majority,and think many others would feel the same.Forgive me for expressing a personal opinion on this.

Regarding Levi his involvement with the club before,during and after the KB takeover has been catalogued by the Chairman,where he clearly and specifically referred to what Levi had taken out of the club.Had this been untruthful then I'm sure legal proceedings on these specific matters would have followed,as indeed they did over other issues.The season ticket money that the club are suing Admatch/Weston,was something that Levi was associated with and which I'm sure will be proved correct.At the present moment in time Levi has share issues with Ken Bates,and should the former be found to have a link with Astor then Levi may well have a say in whatever proceeds the subsequent investigation.

Seagullbus just answer one question "It was confirmed by the best possible source and you have been told this, not only by me, but also by a very good and long standing friend of the source (who you have claimed to have a lot of respect for in previous postings)".is this statement true have you been made aware of an agenda against the SC at a very early if not immediate start of Kenneths tenure as Chairman of Leeds United

LUSCBRADFORD wrote:Seagullbus just answer one question "It was confirmed by the best possible source and you have been told this, not only by me, but also by a very good and long standing friend of the source (who you have claimed to have a lot of respect for in previous postings)".is this statement true have you been made aware of an agenda against the SC at a very early if not immediate start of Kenneths tenure as Chairman of Leeds United

The statement made couldnt be verified as evidence because of the possible legal implications,and could well be construed as the individual trying to take revenge.The real issue in all of this is convincing the majority of fans that by not having the Members Club as it stands,that an alternative would be preferential.I personally cant see that happening as many are happy with the present situation,although of course the costs maybe another issue.What does seem fair comment however is the majority of supporters wouldnt want the SC being involved in the distribution of away tickets,which you may disagree with of course

How do you know people are happy with the present situation because nobody has been asked!!!!With regards to the SC been involved with tickets I am sure that even the Exec agree with that but as a group of Leeds fans they should be given a level playing field!!!!

LUSCBRADFORD wrote:How do you know people are happy with the present situation because nobody has been asked!!!!With regards to the SC been involved with tickets I am sure that even the Exec agree with that but as a group of Leeds fans they should be given a level playing field!!!!

There is a level playing field and everyones-by and large-happy.Apart from those disaffected of course but thats to be expected.

LUSCBRADFORD wrote:How do you know people are happy with the present situation because nobody has been asked!!!!With regards to the SC been involved with tickets I am sure that even the Exec agree with that but as a group of Leeds fans they should be given a level playing field!!!!

There is a level playing field and everyones-by and large-happy.Apart from those disaffected of course but thats to be expected.

Theres nothing factual to back either claim up but my opinion is based on travelling-and talking with-many Leeds fans from different sections of the fanbase.This includes RMCS and SC's and by attending Trust meetings,LOR's and generally meeting up with folk and asking what their views are.The only time I've ever heard of complaints about the way the SC is treated is from people associated with their committee,rather than the 'rank and file' fans who appear to be indifferent.

That aside I'm not sure what constitutes a 'level playing field' with the LUSC Exec is?I've quite openly been prepared to discuss this with anyone,and even offered to help the Executive in their dealings with the Chairman,but there seems an unwillingness to acknowledge that its his club and it must therefore be on his terms.

Every other Leeds fan accepts this and just gets on with the job in hand,so I dont know why the 'Supporters Club' cant do the same?

LUSCBRADFORD wrote:Seagullbus just answer one question "It was confirmed by the best possible source and you have been told this, not only by me, but also by a very good and long standing friend of the source (who you have claimed to have a lot of respect for in previous postings)".is this statement true have you been made aware of an agenda against the SC at a very early if not immediate start of Kenneths tenure as Chairman of Leeds United

The statement made couldnt be verified as evidence because of the possible legal implications,and could well be construed as the individual trying to take revenge.The real issue in all of this is convincing the majority of fans that by not having the Members Club as it stands,that an alternative would be preferential.I personally cant see that happening as many are happy with the present situation,although of course the costs maybe another issue.What does seem fair comment however is the majority of supporters wouldnt want the SC being involved in the distribution of away tickets,which you may disagree with of course

What do you mean by saying that it could not be confirmed ? IT WAS CONFIRMED. A knowlegeable persons statement in front of witnesses is normally considerd to be evidence - even if you don't like what is being said. What legal implications are you talking about as I am unaware of any at all ?I have never heard it suggested that the individual concerned was seeking revenge and in fact any such actions would hardly have been condusive to the position that he held at the time that he made the confirmation. Yours appears to be a completely baseless argument.

The real issue is whether or not the regime at Leeds actively had a policy of attacking and undermining pre-existing fans groups. It has been confirmed that this really was the position of the club. Whether or not you personally wish to accept it as being true begs the question of why you would prefer to fly in the face of reason and confirmation from impeccable sources. You persist in pushing water uphill.There is no suggestion that the SC is involved in current or future ticket distribution. You keep raising this point yourself simply so that you can then argue against your own point.This is about what the clubs policy was and not about returning to past arrangements.

Rickd wrote:What do you mean by saying that it could not be confirmed ? IT WAS CONFIRMED. A knowlegeable persons statement in front of witnesses is normally considerd to be evidence - even if you don't like what is being said. What legal implications are you talking about as I am unaware of any at all ?I have never heard it suggested that the individual concerned was seeking revenge and in fact any such actions would hardly have been condusive to the position that he held at the time that he made the confirmation. Yours appears to be a completely baseless argument.Youre making this a personal issue when it doesnt have to be-as I've said before its not me you have to convince,its the fanbase who by and large wouldnt take the word of one man and on whom they'd level a personal agenda of his own.It needs something more concrete and irrefutable and I think you really do need to get your head around this.

The real issue is whether or not the regime at Leeds actively had a policy of attacking and undermining pre-existing fans groups. It has been confirmed that this really was the position of the club. Whether or not you personally wish to accept it as being true begs the question of why you would prefer to fly in the face of reason and confirmation from impeccable sources. You persist in pushing water uphill.I'd agree on the real issue although I'd argue that even without Ken Bates the SC had it coming.Again its not me you have to necessarily convince but the majority of the 38k members who are happy with the scheme,but certainly not the costs.I've stated elsewhere however that pound for pound that the 'Bates membership' is better value than what the SC offered previously-and I stand by that.

There is no suggestion that the SC is involved in current or future ticket distribution. You keep raising this point yourself simply so that you can then argue against your own point.This is about what the clubs policy was and not about returning to past arrangements.If the SC issued an unequivocable statement that they would never take up away ticket distribution again,then this might go some way to allaying the fears of many

LUSCBRADFORD wrote:How do you know people are happy with the present situation because nobody has been asked!!!!With regards to the SC been involved with tickets I am sure that even the Exec agree with that but as a group of Leeds fans they should be given a level playing field!!!!

There is a level playing field and everyones-by and large-happy.Apart from those disaffected of course but thats to be expected.

Some folk need to move on IMO

It appears that there is far from being a level playing field in terms of ticket allocation, os so I am lead to understand.It is understandable if the club might wish to provide members with a priority - in order to justify the membership fee if nothing else, but it is clearly ridiculous to pretend that there is a level playing field.Could you tell us for example, how many tickets can be included on a single application from a members club ?Could you also tell us how many tickets can be included on a single application from any other fans group ?Let's say the Supporters Trust wished to make a ticket application. How many names could we include on a single application ?

I think that a great number of people would agree that folk need to move on. I'd suggest that the person who most needs to heed this advice is none other than yourself. For example can you resist banging on about your previous grievances with the SC at every opportunity - whether relevant or toally irrelvant to what the subject of dicussion actuall is ? By applying the "move on" concept to yourself first, we would all see a dramtic improvement.

I also seem to remember that you yourself were particularly disaffected and quite vociferous in your complaints not so long ago when ticketing did not work in your favour. Did I imagine this ?

Rickd wrote:What do you mean by saying that it could not be confirmed ? IT WAS CONFIRMED. A knowlegeable persons statement in front of witnesses is normally considerd to be evidence - even if you don't like what is being said. What legal implications are you talking about as I am unaware of any at all ?I have never heard it suggested that the individual concerned was seeking revenge and in fact any such actions would hardly have been condusive to the position that he held at the time that he made the confirmation. Yours appears to be a completely baseless argument.Youre making this a personal issue when it doesnt have to be-as I've said before its not me you have to convince,its the fanbase who by and large wouldnt take the word of one man and on whom they'd level a personal agenda of his own.It needs something more concrete and irrefutable and I think you really do need to get your head around this.

The real issue is whether or not the regime at Leeds actively had a policy of attacking and undermining pre-existing fans groups. It has been confirmed that this really was the position of the club. Whether or not you personally wish to accept it as being true begs the question of why you would prefer to fly in the face of reason and confirmation from impeccable sources. You persist in pushing water uphill.I'd agree on the real issue although I'd argue that even without Ken Bates the SC had it coming.Again its not me you have to necessarily convince but the majority of the 38k members who are happy with the scheme,but certainly not the costs.I've stated elsewhere however that pound for pound that the 'Bates membership' is better value than what the SC offered previously-and I stand by that.

There is no suggestion that the SC is involved in current or future ticket distribution. You keep raising this point yourself simply so that you can then argue against your own point.This is about what the clubs policy was and not about returning to past arrangements.If the SC issued an unequivocable statement that they would never take up away ticket distribution again,then this might go some way to allaying the fears of many

Once again you are using "smoke and mirrors", the SC don`t need to issue a statement about ticket allocation because it will never happen again.The SC were offered that allocation as a way of helping Leeds United out with its crowd problems at the time and to be fair initially it benefited the club in getting tickets distributed FREE OF CHARGE OR WAGES by a body of Leeds fans and changing/increasing the mix of away support.A Majority of Members Club members are not happy and definitely won`t be happy if we reach the playoff final. The Members Club leaves a lot to be desired in relation of value for money and the limited benefits it offers.

Youre making this a personal issue when it doesnt have to be-as I've said before its not me you have to convince,its the fanbase who by and large wouldnt take the word of one man and on whom they'd level a personal agenda of his own.It needs something more concrete and irrefutable and I think you really do need to get your head around this.

What leads you to believe that I am making this personal ? Is it because I am disagreeing with you and backing up what I am saying ? Why would you perceive that to be personal in any way ? Evidence is not personal even if you don't like the evidence.

In actual fact I have no "need" to convince anybody. Unfortunately for your argument, there is the evidence of the actual attacks upon the fans groups. As far as I know there is no dispute about the fact that the attacks actually took place. The question is only about WHY they took place and not about whether they happened or not.I can either opt to take your position which appears to be based upon nothing more than what you prefer to believe (unless of course people at the club have discussed this with you and told you otherwise) or the clear and unoquivocal statement of a man who was at the heart of it at the time it took place. Weighing up the balance - I can't see much to think about. The "word of one man" as you wish to put it, only confirms the facts of what took place and actually "confirms" the words of MANY other people. He just happens to be in a position to confirm it - and has done. That does not man that he is the only person saying it and anyone would need to be deaf and blind to think that is the case.What possible personal agenda of his own are you talking about ?

I think that I have got my head around this perfectly well but of course you appear to perceive some objective that I don't actually have.

I'd agree on the real issue although I'd argue that even without Ken Bates the SC had it coming.Again its not me you have to necessarily convince but the majority of the 38k members who are happy with the scheme,but certainly not the costs.I've stated elsewhere however that pound for pound that the 'Bates membership' is better value than what the SC offered previously-and I stand by that.

Quite wrong IMHO.This is not about then and now or about the merits of different schemes. Your saying that the SC had it coming appears to justify what took place rather than to try to say that it didn't happen.

I know that you have stated that in your opinion the Members scheme is good value and perhaps you might wish to make that argument in another place which has much wider coverage amongst the fanbase. I'd watch with interest how your views REALLY coincide with the views of many. You often claim to know the views of the wider fans and you frequently castigate others and claim that they cannot understand or know what the majority of fans think. Why not test what you "stand by" against actual wider opinion ? I'll stay out of it for the first few pages (unless you bring me in to it) and let the arguments develop.

If the SC issued an unequivocable statement that they would never take up away ticket distribution again,then this might go some way to allaying the fears of many

The fears of many ? On what basis do you make that claim ?The SC are de facto NOT involved with ticket distribution. In my view they would be very silly to make any sort of binding statement of this sort, about a subject which they are not involved in. I have not personally seen any particular desire for the SC to become involved in ticket distribution but that is only my speaking from my own observations.

Rickd wrote:What leads you to believe that I am making this personal ? Is it because I am disagreeing with you and backing up what I am saying ? Why would you perceive that to be personal in any way ? Evidence is not personal even if you don't like the evidence.Like I said for the neutral observer you cant publically justify the word of one man who may have perceived issues with his former employer as hard evidence,indeed any such statements should really be made available for all to read.This isnt necessarily my view but if you want a majority of Leeds fans to accept it then it has to believeable.I'm actually trying to help you here you seem intent on keeping an argument going

I can either opt to take your position which appears to be based upon nothing more than what you prefer to believe (unless of course people at the club have discussed this with you and told you otherwise) or the clear and unoquivocal statement of a man who was at the heart of it at the time it took place. Weighing up the balance - I can't see much to think about. The inference that people at the club have discussed this specific matter with me demonstrates to me that you are indeed making this personal,but it isnt true I'm afraid.I think theres a balanced view on this where the fanbase were already split on other matters,but you choose not to accept that it would appear.

I think that I have got my head around this perfectly well but of course you appear to perceive some objective that I don't actually have.No objective or agenda here-I just think some people are wasting their time on pursuing this an important issue

Quite wrong IMHO.This is not about then and now or about the merits of different schemes. Your saying that the SC had it coming appears to justify what took place rather than to try to say that it didn't happen. I'm referring to issues that people have had with the SC over a number of years and where we've had countless 'discussions' on waccoe,where even Geoff has admitted that on occasions they got things completely wrong.Thats not to denigrate anyone involved with the SC for their efforts,but the equality of the clubs Members scheme resonates with the majority of fans I believe.You can gloss over this if you wish but its an important in the wider issue

The fears of many ? On what basis do you make that claim ?The SC are de facto NOT involved with ticket distribution. In my view they would be very silly to make any sort of binding statement of this sort, about a subject which they are not involved in. I have not personally seen any particular desire for the SC to become involved in ticket distribution but that is only my speaking from my own observations.

I think youre being cute with your final refernence but you havent acknowledged that by making such a public gesture,that the SC could halp heal the rifts that exists.Considering youre involvement with the SC I'd say that quite a worrying development,and I for one will always campaign with new owners to keep the present system.

Once again your Masters voice was in his programme notes and proved why Kenneth won`t deal with anyone but his ar## lickers.The SC after 6 years of Keneths onslaught still has more Members than the RMC s have and the people pay for the SC on TOP OF BEEN MEMBERS CLUB MEMBERSHIP!!!!I f you can`t see how pathetic that is then you are a person of "closed mind".

LUSCBRADFORD wrote:Once again your Masters voice was in his programme notes and proved why Kenneth won`t deal with anyone but his ar## lickers.The SC after 6 years of Keneths onslaught still has more Members than the RMC s have and the people pay for the SC on TOP OF BEEN MEMBERS CLUB MEMBERSHIP!!!!I f you can`t see how pathetic that is then you are a person of "closed mind".

Not sure that accusing a fellow Leeds fan by referring to 'your masters voice' isnt the action of a 'closed mind'but there you go,it just seems to detract from the point youre trying to make.

Ken Bates runs my football club which is something I cant change,so for now he gets my support particulary after (this week)providing the funds to bring in the excellent Barry Bannan.If KB wants to express and opinion on the SC then he's free to do so,just as you and I are on internet messageboards-but I reckon he'll be glad to see that you've reacted in the way you have

I didnt buy a programme yesterday as its been an expensive week with football,but I dont see the point in anyone rising to the comments as they'll only serve to maintain the divide as it stands.What does concern me however is the response to those comments as its clear (in your case) thats theres still this divide between fans.

What does concern me however is the response to those comments as its clear (in your case) thats theres still this divide between fans.

By making the comments, KB is himself seeking to turn fans groups upon one another.KB isn't a fan so I'm not sure that we should take much notice of what he says with regards to fans groups in the first place.If we wish to discuss fans groups as a revenue stream then KBs opinions would be central to that discussion.

Rickd wrote:By making the comments, KB is himself seeking to turn fans groups upon one another.KB isn't a fan so I'm not sure that we should take much notice of what he says with regards to fans groups in the first place.If we wish to discuss fans groups as a revenue stream then KBs opinions would be central to that discussion.

Nope-KB has made his comments and its then down to the individual to let them divide or otherwise,which my Bradford friend has opted to do.If you want to dicuss income streams with fan groups then the SC provides that opportunity,as they opted to move into the licensing trade on a fixed lease with a brewery.That isnt something you'd ordinarily associate with a fans group,although I'm sure its another example of this club being different in so many other ways to others(rolls eyes smiley)Personally I'd have understood the SCs decision more if they'd used their money to buy a place long term,but that aside they've made their bed and will have to lie in it.I'd have more sympathy but for the fact they decided to leak details of my correspondence with them earlier in the season,which was uncalled for and which warranted an apology in my view.

Rickd wrote:By making the comments, KB is himself seeking to turn fans groups upon one another.KB isn't a fan so I'm not sure that we should take much notice of what he says with regards to fans groups in the first place.If we wish to discuss fans groups as a revenue stream then KBs opinions would be central to that discussion.

Nope-KB has made his comments and its then down to the individual to let them divide or otherwise,which my Bradford friend has opted to do.If you want to dicuss income streams with fan groups then the SC provides that opportunity,as they opted to move into the licensing trade on a fixed lease with a brewery.That isnt something you'd ordinarily associate with a fans group,although I'm sure its another example of this club being different in so many other ways to others(rolls eyes smiley)Personally I'd have understood the SCs decision more if they'd used their money to buy a place long term,but that aside they've made their bed and will have to lie in it.I'd have more sympathy but for the fact they decided to leak details of my correspondence with them earlier in the season,which was uncalled for and which warranted an apology in my view.

Once again you are either ill informed or changing what happened to support Kenneth.The SC used to use the Fullerton Park Social Club it was a Social Club that allowed the use of its concert room on Matchdays to the SC.In the early nineties the Social Club was pulled down but a gentlemans agreement between the Club and the SC that Matchday facilities would be found for the use of SC Members.The Captains Lounge was at the time a "failure",Bill Fotherby offered the Captains Lounge facilities to the SC on the basis that a sum would be given to the Club (an Annual rent as such)and that SC Members would purchase their S/T in the Captains Lounge.All this proved very beneficial for the Football Club and the SC by allowing the SC matchday facilities.After the relegation from the Premier League the Pavilion was then offered by the Football Club to the SC.This was stopped by Kenneth who had his own agenda.The SC then met with the Football Club offering a Annual Payment for Matchday Facilities for SC Members who were not MC Members this was rejected by Kenneth(mainly because he sees the SC as opposition to his MC).The SC were then offered facilities at Soccer City but also looked for premises near ER that they could buy.But given this was the height of the Property boom the valuations were way over what the SC could afford.The SC were also offered land but again the cost of building facilities were unacheivable financially.The OP was mentioned and the costs were looked into,what came out was that the Capital needed was acheivable and the OP lease was purchased.The problem with the whole scenario is that given the Opportunity the SC would have quite happily invested in facilities at ER and the money would have gone to the Football Club THE ONLY PERSON WHO STOPPED THIS HAPPENING WAS KENNETH.With regards to the leaking of your correspondence wuth the SC we have minuted meetings which are available to all Members if they want them therefore was it a "leak" or you just been paranoid.